To think the 70 cap on care home fees is too high

[Pprice]

I think it needs to be nearly half this amount as 70000 is a very high amount for people to have sitting around. Most will still have to seel their homes and this 70000/spent doesn't include lots of things so many will end up spending way more before the NHS steps in.

I don't object to people paying for their accommodation, but that would be the equivalent of basic hotel costs, not the hundreds per week that people are expected to pay.

If everyone who needed residential care had to pay for their accommodation, then everyone would be treated the same. Those who couldn't afford it would be able to claim housing benefit, and those who could would have to pay from their own funds same as they already do (or have done) for rent or a mortgage.

Why should taxpayers pay for anyone to live if they need care?

Any logical answer to that question would apply to everyone, not just people who haven't got a house.

It isn't even just the money.
There are people in care homes who actually have complex medical conditions who are at risk because the carers, even if well meaning, have no training about the sort of things to look out for.

My dad was in heart failure and they kept lying him down flat, then calling the ambulance when he couldn't breathe. No amount of explaining that he had to be propped up made the slightest difference.

Also - they didn't understand that the reason he got pressure sores was because they left him sitting in his wheelchair for 8 hours at a time.

They frequently left him in agony with a blocked catheter because they couldn't understand the mechanics of how it worked.

You have to rely on the staff calling in a district nurse when things go wrong, but they may not recognise that there is anything wrong for hours or days.

But none of these elderly people qualify for nursing care - they only need social care. .

Problem with dementia is its a chronic degenerative condition like arthritis or multiple sclerosis and won't need medical intervention until the very late stages. The care you need from a chronic degenerative condition is mainly social and as such won't qualify for NHS funding. It's all about ensuring a person is safe and comfortable and getting basic needs met rather than administering medication, catheterisation etc

If everyone who needed residential care had to pay for their accommodation, then everyone would be treated the same. Those who couldn't afford it would be able to claim housing benefit, and those who could would have to pay from their own funds same as they already do (or have done) for rent or a mortgage.

that seems to be an argument against housing benefit in general.

one way to do it is to have a tiered system of social care. Basic (funded by taxpayers) to much nicer (privately funded).

I don't see it as an argument against housing benefit, as a civilised society we do need to make some provision for people that can't house themselves.

But this isn't just about accommodation costs, it's about the social and healthcare costs as well, which some people have to pay for and some don't.

People who have an asset should have the choice over whether they want the basic state provided care or if they want to spend their money on a home with extras. It is not right that people are penalised for having a little financial success.

I have a relative with dementia in a care home. She 100% is not safe and unable to live in her own. Now if somebody without dementia had these symptoms (mental health) they would be sectioned and cared for. So why not her?

Inheritance isn't a right, and the sense of entitlement many people have is appalling. I'd hate to think of my children thinking of my house as their own, and resenting me paying for my care in my dying years because it will use "their" inheritance.

My sister has spent a lot of time getting a charge put against my mother's house and ages investigating every loophole possible to avoid selling it. I've been criticised for not putting in the time doing this. Regardless of the fact that she works part time and has my brother in law to help, and I work full time, am self employed and on my own, I'm disgusted by her attitude and it's affected our relationship.
I pay my mother's personal costs myself as I think it's the decent thing to do and I got sick of her whinging and picking over the bills before my mother's savings ran out.
If I hear one more bleat about "our inheritance" I may never speak to her again. As it is I don't talk to her unless I have to.
She has an almost paid off mortgage. I'm renting, paying off divorce debt and will probably never be able to buy again, but her entitled attitude is sickening. My mum's clothes come out of the money I pay. She brought us up. She deserves more respect and dignity than my sister's prepared to give her.

The inheritance issue instructor really relevant. Of course no one is entitled to an inheritance, but individuals should have a right to do what they want with their own money, including leaving it to be an inheritance if that's what they choose.

I too would hate to think of my children ever thinking of my home as their inheritance, but equally, I hate thinking that the government can take my home if I'm unlucky enough to get a particular illness.

Its so refreshing to see a reasoned debate on something as important as elderly care and what happens when we age as very few people plan for it.

If only our politicians were capable of discussing it like this rather than shouting contradictory stats at each other!

Hmm from reading this thread and considering the carefully structured opinions I think I may have changed my mind slightly on this.

I'm still anti inheritance but maybe that doesn't have to play as huge a part in this as I had first thought.

I think one option could be to put care homes back into the hands of the state and stop these private companies making what looks like a huge profit from the most vulnerable of society. £800pw? I was really shocked to hear this. I don't believe for the standard of care they get and the low level wages in these places that there isn't a fat cat somewhere making a nice big cream at the top of all this.

So I think this is what needle was talking about when they said that HB would cover those who did not have a home and were receiving it anyway, and personal wealth/ income/ would cover those that would not be entitled to HB? And the medical side would be covered by the NHS?

This is something I'd be happy to pay taxes for. As I pointed out in another post where Person A & B earned the same but A saved and B spent, As savings can go towards the cost of this and B by spending has likely contributed more in taxes throughout their life so should not be denied HB.

And AliBaba I agree, my views have probably changed since reading this thread and I definitely feel more informed regarding those in care and how this affects their families.

What would help the standard of care would be if carers were salaried and not on zero hour contracts

I agree. I think some homes must be making a tidy profit while the carers earn very little and aren't even salaried in many cases.

NickyEds Thu 29-Jan-15 21:42:15

I have been away from this thread for a while but just wanted to come back to the point that NickyEds made to me.

the elderly are taken care of if they need it. I suppose it's your definition of "need". If someone had a house worth say,£350K and £150K in savings it could be argued that they aren't "in need" of Government help and should pay for their own care.

It is a fair point but unless you also apply it to the rich who have other health problems, (eg - the man who has cancer but lives in £350,000 house shouldn't get his treatment free,) or to education so that the family who earns £100k a year should pay for their kids' education, or to "social services" for disabled people then it isn't fair - and becomes ageist.

Care homes are cripplingly expensive though and if other social services and medical needs for the elderly were better then there would sometimes not be a need for the homes.

Twiglet makes exactly the point I want to make. Dementia can kick in pretty early too. (50s) It is an illness. And a horrible one.

It's a chronic Degenerative illness Effectively arthritis of the brain. That's why it's different. And to the earlier poster yes people with dementia can and do get sectioned

A standard/basic care home with dementia facilities is £900 per week in London.

A resident who is doubly incontinent, has dementia, plus various medical conditions does not qualify for "nursing care" - only personal care.

I have no issue with residents paying for their accommodation and food, but £900 a week is a lot of money, given that the state pays £500 per week for the residents they fund in the same care home. I do find it hard to work out where the money goes - except, of course, the £400 is subsidising the shortfall. I am guessing that the actual cost per person per week is around £700.

We moved my father out of 2 care homes because the quality of care was so poor. Some care staff are great, but often in the minority. Care of the elderly is considered suitable for people who have no qualifications and would not be employable in any other job. They are on zero hours contracts and minimum wage - effectively being exploited by employers who are making a lot of money in the care home business.

Unless you actually have a relative in a care home you won't realise that you have to visit every weekend, if not every day, to check that they are being washed, fed, hydrated. You have to make sure that any problems have been identified and dealt with. You have to make sure their clothes/teeth/glasses/shoes/hearing aid have not been lost. You have to make sure that they have toiletries and other personal items - these are not provided. It is still a huge responsibility. You still have to take your relative to the endless hospital appointments, dental check ups etc.

If they fall over and the care home sends them to A&E, you will get called at 3 am to go and collect them - no-one else is going to transport them back to the care home, and the alternative is for them to be left on a trolley all night.

Self funders are not allowed to spend any of their own money - the allowance is just enough to buy toiletries, stamps, a newspaper, birthday card etc. Everything else is ring fenced for the fees.

I feel desperately sorry for anyone who doesn't have family to oversee their care.